Crossroads -- Whoa, conservatives love "red" states? Who knew?

The New York Times says that some religious wackos are fleeing "blue" America for the wrong reasons

A year ago, the attorney general of California sued a Southern California school district because of a controversial — in California — policy defending parental rights. Here is the top of an Associated Press report:

California’s attorney general sued a Southern California school district … over its new policy requiring schools to notify parents if their children change their gender identification or pronouns, the latest blow in an intensifying battle between a handful of school districts and the state about the rights of trans kids and their parents.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said policies like the one adopted by Chino Valley Unified School District will forcibly out transgender students and threaten their well-being. But the district’s board president and supporters say parents have a right to know the decisions their children are making in schools.

That was just one clash out of many, in the past decades or so, between parents in the deep-blue state of California and parents who think the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution clash with centuries of doctrines in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Beginning in 2020, California officials also wrestled with another set of headlines — as thousands of the state’s citizens moved to other states (especially Texas). That trend ended in 2023 with a slight rebound, but not before it launched waves of memes about U-Haul trucks. The Associated Press said quoted critics saying the “state’s high cost of living, uncertain power supply, a housing and homelessness crisis and concerns about crime were partly to blame.” That’s all?

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, host Todd Wilken and I discussed whether these trends might have something to do with the contents of a New York Times news feature that ran with this double-decker headline:

Why a New Conservative Brain Trust Is Resettling Across America

Pro-Trump professionals aren’t just talking about remaking Western civilization. Some are uprooting their lives to show that they mean it.

At one point, the story concedes that quite a few Americans are leaving “blue” states and moving to “red” states — the colors come from several decades of maps after presidential elections — because they’re “chasing the cheaper costs of living and safer neighborhoods that fuel many ordinary moves.”

The word “safer” is interesting, especially if one considers moral and cultural issues, as well as mere crime.

The Gray Lady’s epic is shaped by concerns that some people are leaving “blue” zip codes for the wrong reasons — as in reasons rooted in religious convictions.

This is, of course, described primarily in terms of recent politics, not cultural trends that are decades in the making. Prepare for a strong does of Orange Man Bad rhetoric:

As Mr. Trump barrels through his third presidential campaign, his supporters buoyed by last week’s debate, many of the young activists and thinkers who have risen under his influence see themselves as part of a project that goes far beyond electoral politics. Rather, it is a movement to reclaim the values of Western civilization as they see it. Their ambitions paint a picture of the country they want should Mr. Trump return to the White House — one driven by their version of Christian values, with larger families and fewer immigrants. …

Fed up by what they see as an increasingly hostile and disordered secular culture, many are moving to what they view as more welcoming states and regions, battling for American society from conservative “fortresses.”

Some see themselves as participants in and advocates for a “great sort,” a societal reordering in which conservatives and liberals naturally divide into more homogenous communities and areas.

This leads to a predictable conclusion about these religious wackos:

The circle’s critics say they present a cleaned-up version of some of the darkest elements of the right, including a cultural homogeneity to the point of racism and an openness to using violence to achieve political ends.

In a display of admirable restraint, the editors didn’t include any references to “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Since these specific activists tend to be intellectuals, artists and educators (think classical schools), one critic quoted in this piece did call them “a highbrow version of the militia movement.”

The Times team couldn’t seem to make up its hive mind about one key issue: Are these religious radicals trying to take control of America or are they simply advocates of Federalism? Who knows, they may even be striving to defend old-school “liberal” First Amendment doctrines linked to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religious practice.

At one point, there is a brief, truncated reference to the work of conservative thinker Aaron Renn, author of the new book “Life in the Negative World: Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture.”

For context, it helps to read the typology Renn offered in 2022 in his much-debated First Things essay, “The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism.” He argues that, within the evolving story of “American secularization” — or perhaps pluralism — there have been three stages:

* Positive World (Pre-1994): Society at large retains a mostly positive view of Christianity. To be known as a good, churchgoing man remains part of being an upstanding citizen. Publicly being a Christian is a status-enhancer. …

* Neutral World (1994–2014): Society takes a neutral stance toward Christianity. Christianity no longer has privileged status but is not disfavored. Being publicly known as a Christian has neither a positive nor a negative impact on one’s social status. Christianity is a valid option within a pluralistic public square. …

* Negative World (2014–Present): Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of ­society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order.

As I said, the Times team can’t seem to grasp that many religious and cultural conservatives may be seeking zip codes and even states in which their families can live in a “Neutral World” setting, even while coping with national realities (think Hollywood, Yale Law School, Big Tech, even Bud Lite) that demonstrate “Negative World” culture.

Let’s end with two articulate voices from this complex drama, more widely defined.

First, consider this passage from a Southern Living feature about the family life of a rather symbolic (#AlrightAlrightAlright) Hollywood superstar, describing a move from the left coast to a (bright blue) zone in Texas. The headline: “Matthew And Camila Alves McConaughey On Family Traditions, Their Love For West Texas, And The Perfect Tequila Drink.”

Traditions?

“In Texas,” says Camila, “we were going to the church that we like to attend every Sunday. Sports became a stronger tradition for the kids — ”

“Ritual!” Matthew interjects. “Ritual came back, whether that was Sunday church, sports, dinner together as a family every night, or staying up after that telling stories in the kitchen, sitting at the island pouring drinks and nibbling while retelling them all in different ways than we told them before.”

That sounds nice. This next passage is more ominous and is drawn from my “On Religion” column about a timely book on Federalism and the threat of serious, permanent, divisions in America:

“It's time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed.” … Right now, "there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart."

Americans are divided by their choices in news and popular culture. America remains the developing world's most religious nation, yet its increasingly secularized elites occupy one set of zip codes, while most traditional religious believers live in another.

The book in question? That would be “Divided We Fall,” by David French, which was written before he moved to the New York Times op-ed page.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, share it with others.